Author Topic: off OU topic distractions (Read 39043 times)

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #45 on:** November 14, 2010, 03:32:21 AM »

Thanks Mark. But I'm not about to start another thread here. Interesting point though. Does one automatically have the right to monitor one's thread? I never knew that.

I need a forum where there's little or no interst so that I can make due record. That's all that's required. But I believe there are those members who have already attended to this. So it's happening.

My intention from here on is to simply develop my own blog. That way no-one gets to interrupt the theme.

You went to a lot of trouble there. Thanks for that.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #46 on:** November 14, 2010, 03:38:19 AM »

Quote from: wattsup on November 14, 2010, 03:28:31 AM

I put all the pages of the closed thread are now here;
http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Overunity.com%20-%20Forum%20members/rosemarie-ainslie/

Someone can always rework the pages into a pdf file.

@stefan

As for deleting @RA's thread, @stefan please reconsider because the impact will be great. If you do that, then I and many others will never post a discovery on this forum because we could not trust you anymore. I could be Rosemary, like any other member here could be, and, none of us would want that kind of treatment. Any Joe Blow can come here and start massacring a thread then it results in the thread being deleted. Members will always have to be on guard, never knowing if the thread will be there from one week to the next. That's not a good way to run a forum. Besides, the thread will fall into its archival purpose like all other threads eventually do. So what's the big deal to delete it?. Just leave it closed but leave it there.

Then I suggest you ban @fuzzytomcat for having caused so much hassle. The guy has some lose parts in his brains and he has dishonored the OU community with his lower then low tactics. I am just totally insulted by his actions against Rosemary. Just get rid of him fast.

wattsup - you're a honey. I'm afraid I'm not sure about those files of yours because I can't open them. But Wilby is making good use of it. Many thanks indeed. And possibly there's another forum where they can also go. So it's looking promising.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #47 on:** November 14, 2010, 03:48:40 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 02:03:39 AM

More to the point - do you understand the meaning of the word DEFAMATION? I am absolutely NOT GUILTY OF PERJURY. To be guilty you will need to prove that I am precluded from publishing the submitted paper to the TIE - IEEE. Perjury would require that I CLAIMED THAT IT WAS PUBLISHED. I go to some considerable efforts both publicly here and in an explanation of the publication on SCRIBD to assure EVERYONE THAT THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED. I rely on this. It gives the cause enormous POLITICAL CAPITAL. HOWEVER. Now that Scribd have removed the paper PENDING AN INVESTIGATION - and as HARTI is about to remove my thread - there will be ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THIS. Again. To those of you who care enough. Please make copies of that thread that is about to be deleted.

@Glen. You need to remind us all how you stated on my thread - that thread that is about to be deleted - that 'everyone knows that you have sole copyright'. There are seven authors. ANY ONE OF THOSE SEVEN AUTHORS ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO PUBLISH THAT PAPER ANYWHERE THEY DEEM FIT. IN THE EVEN THAT THEY RECEIVE ROYALTIES FOR THIS THEN THAT MUST BE SHARED BETWEEN ALL THE COLLABORATORS. You do NOT have sole copyright. And if you try and register sole copyright then you will have PERJURED YOURSELF. That is the meaning of perjury GLEN and I strongly propose you get familiar with the term.

Also. You PERJURED YOURSELF previously when you wrote to Scribd to advise them that you REPRESENTED THE SOLE COPYRIGHT OWNER. Then too they withdrew the paper - PENDING AND INVESTIGATION. And may I remind both you and all the readers here that the result of that investigation was the RE-INSTATEMENT OF THAT PAPER. I am ENTIRELY SATISFIED that this will be done again. I have NOT INFRINGED ANYONE'S COPYRIGHT NOR WRONGFULLY MISREPRESENTED THE STATUS OF THE PAPER. ON THE CONTRARY.

And I believe I either have you or Harvey or both of you to thank for this latest intervention - ALL DONE in a desperate attempt to lose me any voice at all.

Rosemary

Edited spelling

Quote - By Rosemary Ainslie
I go to some considerable efforts both publicly here and in an explanation of the publication on SCRIBD to assure EVERYONE THAT THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED.

Then "EXACTLY" what is this IEEE authorized "Pre Print" document with all seven authors names on it ? published by FuzzyTomCat ??

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #48 on:** November 14, 2010, 03:57:13 AM »

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 14, 2010, 03:48:40 AM

Quote - By Rosemary Ainslie
I go to some considerable efforts both publicly here and in an explanation of the publication on SCRIBD to assure EVERYONE THAT THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED.

Then "EXACTLY" what is this IEEE authorized "Pre Print" document with all seven authors names on it ? published by FuzzyTomCat ??

THE FILE IS A PDF OF THE PAPER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO TIE JOURNAL AND THE PREPRINT IS PROOF OF THAT SUBMISSION. THE THEME OF THE SCRIBD PUBLICATION IS ITS OUTRIGHT - PRE REVIEW - REJECTION. IT IS REFERENCED EVERYWHERE.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

.

THE FILE IS A PDF OF THE PAPER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO TIE JOURNAL AND THE PREPRINT IS PROOF OF THAT SUBMISSION. THE THEME OF THE SCRIBD PUBLICATION IS ITS OUTRIGHT - PRE REVIEW - REJECTION. IT IS REFERENCED IN THE COMMENTS AND THROUGHOUT 2 THREADS BOTH HERE AND AT ENERGETIC FORUM. Without that reference of submission there is NO PROOF OF HAVING SUBMITTED IT.

Rosemary

ADDED. NOT ONLY WAS THIS PUBLISHED BUT WAS PUBLISHED AT ENERGETIC FORUM - BY MYSELF - WAS THE LETTER THAT PROPOSED THAT WE SUBMIT THE PAPER DIRECTLY TO A PHYSICS JOURNAL. THAT IS WHAT YOU AND HARVEY SCUPPERED. I HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER CLAIMED IMPLIED PRETENDED HINTED OR INTENDED TO ADVISE OUR PUBLIC THAT THE PAPER WAS ACCEPTED. I GO OUT OF MY WAY TO ASSURE ALL READERS THAT IT WAS REJECTED PRIOR TO REVIEW.

And guys, just a point here. The paper, there were two submissions of two different papers - never even made it to review. This means that they could not fault the conclusions. Else they would simply have rejected it out of hand which would have meant that we could never re-submit it.

That's the good news that Harvey, Glen et al - are anxious that you do not realise.

Regards
Rosemary

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #49 on:** November 14, 2010, 04:05:33 AM »

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 14, 2010, 03:48:40 AM

Quote - By Rosemary Ainslie
I go to some considerable efforts both publicly here and in an explanation of the publication on SCRIBD to assure EVERYONE THAT THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED.

Then "EXACTLY" what is this IEEE authorized "Pre Print" document with all seven authors names on it ? published by FuzzyTomCat ??

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

.

Quote

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on Today at 03:48:40 AM

Quote - By Rosemary Ainslie
I go to some considerable efforts both publicly here and in an explanation of the publication on SCRIBD to assure EVERYONE THAT THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED.

Then "EXACTLY" what is this IEEE authorized "Pre Print" document with all seven authors names on it ? published by FuzzyTomCat ??

THE FILE IS A PDF OF THE PAPER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO TIE JOURNAL AND THE PREPRINT IS PROOF OF THAT SUBMISSION. THE THEME OF THE SCRIBD PUBLICATION IS ITS OUTRIGHT - PRE REVIEW - REJECTION. IT IS REFERENCED EVERYWHERE.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

.

THE FILE IS A PDF OF THE PAPER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO TIE JOURNAL AND THE PREPRINT IS PROOF OF THAT SUBMISSION. THE THEME OF THE SCRIBD PUBLICATION IS ITS OUTRIGHT - PRE REVIEW - REJECTION. IT IS REFERENCED EVERYWHERE.

@ Rosemary you modified and added this to my Quote ......is there no end to how far you will go ...

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #50 on:** November 14, 2010, 04:20:56 AM »

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 14, 2010, 04:05:33 AM

THE FILE IS A PDF OF THE PAPER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO TIE JOURNAL AND THE PREPRINT IS PROOF OF THAT SUBMISSION. THE THEME OF THE SCRIBD PUBLICATION IS ITS OUTRIGHT - PRE REVIEW - REJECTION. IT IS REFERENCED EVERYWHERE.

LOL I've spent the last half hour trying to understand your complaint. Seems like a made a typo. I do this often. Usually I pick it up.

Your problem Glen is that you assume that everyone here is a fool. The readership on OU.COM is absolutely nothing like the readership at EF.Com. Far more discerning. You'll need to up the ante. And trying to capitalise on clear typos is not going to convince anyone. Especially when they're mine. I'm half blind remember.

ADDED. BTW. Nice HIGHLIGHTING. It's a comfort that the point has now been made over and over...and over. Thank you for that.

tak22 · « **Reply #51 on:** November 14, 2010, 06:16:09 AM »

hmm ... another mugged topic, taken over by the Magic Heater crowd.

it's laughable, ironic, sad, pathetic, amusing, and on and on and on ...

get back on topic or go away. it's that simple.

tak

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #52 on:** November 14, 2010, 07:10:41 AM »

Quote from: tak22 on November 14, 2010, 06:16:09 AM

hmm ... another mugged topic, taken over by the Magic Heater crowd.

it's laughable, ironic, sad, pathetic, amusing, and on and on and on ...

get back on topic or go away. it's that simple.

tak

Hello tak - if the subject were that trivial I would agree with you. This 'magic heater system' that you dismiss so readily is in need of all the attention it can get. And I'm not sure why it's off topic. This thead topic is 'off OU topic distractions'. It's got everything to do with being forced off topic by a barrage of distractions. And nor is it necessary to tell me with so little decency and good manners to 'go away'. As it I'm being forced away together with that 'magic heating system'. More's the pity. My concern in any event is that it's magic does not disappear into the clutches of interested parties. I would have thought our OU community would be rather more concerned than otherwise. With respect. After all I am not a beneficiary. I am only trying to advance a technology. And I do it on a full-time basis - my health or wealth - or lack thereof - notwithstanding. Do you?

Rosemary

DeepCut · « **Reply #53 on:** November 14, 2010, 10:55:06 AM »

This is a Free Energy forum, not a Wasted Energy forum.

Rosie i suggest you ignore people criticising you.

Don't even reply to this just ignore the crap.

Best Wishes, Gary.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #54 on:** November 14, 2010, 01:32:50 PM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 01:19:56 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on November 14, 2010, 02:27:53 AM
ANOTHER OPEN LETTER TO HARTIBERLIN

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE MY OWN THREAD. JUST LOCK IT. ELSE WE WILL ALL LOSE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON THAT THREAD THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE PUT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN - IN GOOD FAITH - AND FOR PERMANENT RECORD. THIS RELATES NOT ONLY TO THE WORK ON THE THESIS - BUT TO THE APPLICATION OF THAT WORK ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A MAGNETIC MONOPOLE. ELSE THERE WILL BE NO DUE AND PROPER RECORD. AND THAT WORK WILL BE LOST WHICH WILL ENABLE THE OUTRIGHT THEFT OF THAT TECHNOLOGY AND THAT THESIS.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
In case you missed this open letter. Please read this Harti. I think you are making an enormous error in deleting when locking would more than serve your purposes.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

BTW Read those posts on that very short thread. Please. I don't think it will take that much of your time and it is my defense. Thus far I do not understand why you need to delete. Just LOCK. For pity's sake.

Guys, I have messaged Harti, yet again. I am not defending the mismanagement of that thread. I am simply asking that he don't delete it. If any of you feel strongly enough about this perhaps you could add to my request here in a pm to him. Thank you.

regards,
Rosemary

b4FreeEnergy · « **Reply #55 on:** November 14, 2010, 03:08:40 PM »

Glen,

What is it you want? I donâ€™t get it anymore!

You got Rosemary off the Energetic forum, you got her now as good as off the Overunity forum.
You made contact with the South African university where she managed to convince people to at least have a look at the circuit themselves and do their own measurements. She in fact actually told them, donâ€™t take my word for it but measure it yourself and then tell me what you think. You caused a lot of hassle and troubles contacting those university people and introduced a huge delay before the tests on Rosemarieâ€™s circuit could actually start. And it is inside a university finally this time as well for goodness sake.

I thought you were one of the people trying to have those new energy sources (re-)introduced in the world as soon as possible? Now I start wondering if you might be one of the MIB! Is someone paying you to sabotage Rosemarieâ€™s threads? Is what she is trying to show so frightening to certain people they feel an urgent need to suppress it whatever it takes? Yesterday I went to the movies to see â€œFair Gameâ€ of Doug Liman. It gives a clear picture of what the American government is capable of doing and itâ€™s not a nice picture. It makes you wondering what they would do or how far they would go if something is about to come out what they really donâ€™t want to come out. Frightening! Is it that Glen, are you one of them?

You posted loads of links and emphasized sentences and words with all colors of the rainbow. I think you made your point, canâ€™t you just continue with your life now and concentrate on positive things again? What good will come out of this crusade of yours? Besides, who has the time to read all this? Really going to the bottom of it would take several weeks I guess, full time. I donâ€™t have the time for that and quite frankly I donâ€™t want to do it either. To find out what in the end? That Rosemary did a few things she would better have done or phrased in another way? Big deal!

Weâ€™re not interested in the semantics, weâ€™re interested in real results, we want free energy for everybody. Didnâ€™t the big oil and nuclear energy companies cause enough damage and pollution already? Isnâ€™t it time to start using energy sources that do not destroy the very habitat we are living in? I saw Stephan closing Rosemaryâ€™s thread with the words that winter stands for the door and we still donâ€™t have free energy available to heat our houses. We want to go â€˜offâ€™ grid and have every single house with a neat and small energy cell, not polluting and certainly not â€˜controlledâ€™ by some government.

I may be just a naÃ¯ve dreamer but really, what is it that you want?

Bart

powercat · « **Reply #56 on:** November 14, 2010, 06:04:23 PM »

Hi b4FreeEnergy
That was a very good post, I don't know if Glen is MIB, but he certainly seems to have lost the plot
with his repetitive ranting,he is like a two year old having a tantrum.

Stefan
make Wattsup the moderator and let him sort out this mess

cat

hartiberlin · « **Reply #57 on:** November 14, 2010, 07:00:33 PM »

Okay, I think it is better to set all the battle people on
read only and keep the threads as they are and just lock them
now, as no new technology info is posted right here....

So, if the users who are battling about this come
again to a conclusion, that they want to share their
newest hardware findings and will post
circuit diagrams, they should just contact me via email
and I will reenable their postings right.

I think this is the best compromise for now.

Regards, Stefan.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: off OU topic distractions (Read 39043 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: off OU topic distractions

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: off OU topic distractions

fuzzytomcat

Re: off OU topic distractions

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: off OU topic distractions

fuzzytomcat

Re: off OU topic distractions

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: off OU topic distractions

tak22

Re: off OU topic distractions

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: off OU topic distractions

DeepCut

Re: off OU topic distractions

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: off OU topic distractions

b4FreeEnergy

Re: off OU topic distractions

powercat

Re: off OU topic distractions

hartiberlin

Re: off OU topic distractions